BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 565 of 2015
Date of Institution: 10.09.2015
Date of Decision: 01.08.2016
Ms.Navjot Kaur daughter of Sh.Gursharan Singh, resident of 44, Guru Nanak Avenue, Phase II, Majitha Road, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, having is Head Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited having its Branch Office at SCO-112, ICICI Bank Building District Shopping Centre, M.K.Hotel Road, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through is Branch Manager.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Munish Menon, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Ms.Navjot Kaur has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is a peace loving resident of Amritsar. The Opposite Parties are dealing in providing consultancy services, guidance and assistance in completion of requirements for immigration to various countries including Denmark. The complainant intended to immigrate to Denmark for her better prospects in life and approached the Opposite Parties for providing necessary consultancy, help and guidance for completing the process of immigration. While providing necessary consultancy, Opposite Parties informed the complainant that a total expenditure of Rs.3 lacs is involved for the said purpose including their own fee for consultancy, completion of documents, fee to be paid to the embassy and other requirements. As desired by Opposite Parties, the complainant firstly paid Rs.30000/- to Opposite Parties on 23.12.2013 and again deposited Rs.37,415.88 paisa on 31.12.2013 against proper receipts issued by the Opposite Parties. After getting the aforesaid payments, the Opposite Parties made the complainant run from piller to post for completion of endless documents and the complainant went on completing all the requirements as informed for about 10 months. After collecting huge amount from the complainant and documents as desired again and again, Opposite Parties sent an e-mail to the complainant again requiring various documents including a document showing Rs.20 lacs to be retained in the bank account for around 6 months to one year as white money. The complainant being a student and not earning person was astonished to know about the said requirement as the said requirement was never informed or intimated to the complainant while seeing consultancy and before collecting huge amounts from the complainant by the Opposite Parties and the complainant informed the Opposite Parties that why they had not disclosed the said requirement and had the complainant knew about the said requirement, she would never have applied for immigration to Denmark. On account of the aforesaid facts, the complainant made repeated requests to the Opposite Parties to close her file No. 78823 being maintained and refund the amount received from the complainant as she was not interested to continue with the said application in view of the requirement lately intimated which was for from impossible for her to be fulfilled but the Opposite Parties kept on making lame excuses and not refunded the amount to the complainant without any rhyme or reason. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.67,415/- collected from the complainant by the Opposite Parties in connivance with each other alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till refund of the amount.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs,.20,000/- for undue harassment, mental tension suffered by the complainant at the hands of the Opposite Parties.
c) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the entire costs of litigation incurred by the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present case is a case of non payment of dues as per Contract of engagement dated 23.12.2013 signed by the complainant with Opposite Parties, copy of which is attached herewith. The complainant had retained the services of the company for receiving professional services with respect of preparation and submission of application for resident permit under the Green Card scheme for Denmark and as per clause 3, the complainant had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- towards the professional fee of the Opposite Parties . As per the contract an amount of Rs.60,000/- was to be paid at the time of retaining the service of the complainant which the complainant had paid vide two receipts dated 23.12.2013 and 31.12.2013, copies of which are attached herewith. But however, the complainant has failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- which the complainant was required to pay within 30 days from the date of signing of the Contract as per clause 3 of the said contract. Thus, it is the complainant who has failed to pay the dues of the answering Opposite Parties as agreed by him and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; that the present case is a case of non-submission of required documents for case filing. The complainant as per clause 2(a) of the said contract was required to submit the complete set of documents for case filing within 30 days from the signing of the contract which the complainant has failed to do till date and therefore, the case of the complainant could not be processed and filed. The complainant is not entitled to any refund as per clause 2(a), clause 7(a), clause 8(a) of the said contract and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents alongwith proof of funds amounting to Rs.20 lacs which the complainant was required to show for immigration to Denmark. As pr clause 2(u) of the said contract, the complainant was to make own arrangement for transfer of funds and investment in Denmark amounting to Rs.20 lacs as per Green Card Scheme for Denmark which the complainant has failed to arrange for and as such her case could not be processed and filed. The complainant was duly informed at the time of signing of the contract that she will be required to show INR 20 lacs (approximately) under this scheme. Even an e-mail dated 11.3.2014, copy of which is attached herewith, was also sent to the complainant asking for the documents as well as proof of funds. Further at the time of filing of the assessment sheet also, copy of which attached herewith, a detailed note No.14 was also put in regarding proof of funds to be provided by the complainant. Thus, it is the complainant herself who has failed to submit complete documents as well as proof of funds due to which her case could not be processed and filed and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; that once the complainant had retained the services, the company started providing services from day one, even before case was filed. Services such as:
a) Counselling and advising the client about the immigration category in which he/she retained the services and the immigration procedure to be followed.
b) Providing and counselling the client about immigration package and the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for filing immigration application.
c) Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms in proper format as per the requirement of immigration authorities, etc. Documents such as Experience documents, education documents etc.
As such, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering Opposite Parties at any point of time and the present complaint needs dismissal; that out of the total amount of Rs.67,415/- an amount of Rs.7415/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant which is totally non refundable as the same has gone into government account as is clear from the receipts dated 23.12.2013 and 31.12.2013, wherein the details of service tax have been mentioned, thus this amount can not be claimed from the answering Opposite Parties. The complainant in actual has paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- only to the Opposite Parties; that this Forum at Amritsar does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint because the complainant has agreed in clause 12 of agreement dated 23.12.2013 that all the differences and disputes between the parties hereto on any clause or matter herein contained, their respective rights, claims, liabilities, howsoever in relation to or arising out of this agreement shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Arbitrator appointed by the company whose award shall be final and binding on both the parties. Since this Forum at Amritsar does not have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint are also denied on the lines taken in the preliminary objections in the written version and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of letter Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, copy of application Ex.C4, copies of receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of contract of engagement Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj Ex.OP1,2/A, copy of contract of engagement Ex.Op1,2/1, copy of receipts Ex.OP1,2/2 and Ex.OP1,2/3, e-mail Ex.OP1,2/4, assessment sheet Ex.OP1,2/5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant applied for Denmark immigration for better life as suggested by them on 22nd December, 2013. They did counselling and explained whole of the procedure incept. But the complainant was not intimated that amount of Rs.20 lacs was required to be shown as deposit at the time of moving to Denmark. The complainant was unaware of the system and was not experienced person and the Opposite Party told her that expenditure to move out is around of Rs.3 lacs only. The complainant agreed and gave Ist Instalment in two parts. Ist instalment of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant on 23rd of December, 2013 and 2nd instalment of Rs.37,414.88 paisa was paid by the complainant on 31st December, 2013, copies of receipts account for Ex.OP1,2/2 and Ex.OP1,2/3 respectively. After that, the Opposite Parties took months to start the procedure and on 3.11.2014 they sent an e-mail on which they specified regarding the amount of Rs.20 lacs which has to be shown as white money around 6 months to one year, copy of e-mail accounts for Ex.OP1,2/4. The complainant was simple teacher and was not in a position to show that much amount. The Opposite Parties have misguided the complainant and now they have refused to return hard earned money obtained by them from her. The complainant visited Opposite Parties so many times with a request to refund the money, but they want on dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. At last, the complainant gave applications dated 14.3.2015 and 20.4.2015 to Opposite Parties for the refund of the amount already received by them, copies of receipts account for Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 respectively. Opposite Parties ultimately have refused to refund the amount of Rs. 67,415/- to the complainant. Non refund of the amount illegally collected by the Opposite Parties in connivance with each other and dilly dallying the matter on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is therefore contended that the complaint may be allowed in the interest of justice.
7. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties for not informing her that she was required to show the deposit of Rs.20 lacs in her bank account for a period of about 6 months to one year for entertaining her application for immigration to Denmark. Since the complainant failed to comply with said requirement, therefore, her file was closed. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had to be approached the Opposite Parties for immigration to Denmark and entered into contract of Engagement dated 23.12.2013 signed by the complainant with the Opposite Parties, copy whereof is Ex.OP1. The complainant had retained the services of the company for receiving professional services with respect to preparation and submission of application for resident permit under the Green Card Scheme of Denmark. As per clause 3 of the agreement referred above, the complainant had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- towards the professional fee of the Opposite Parties. As per the contract Ex.OP1, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was to be paid at the time of retaining the services of the Opposite Parties by complainant which the complainant has paid vide two receipts dated 23.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 copies of which are Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 respectively, but however, the complainant had failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- which the complainant was required to pay within 30 days from the date of signing of contract as per clause 3 of the said contract. Further, the complainant, as per clause 2(a) of the said contract, was required to submit the complete set of documents for case filing within 30 days from signing of the contract which the complainant has also failed to do till date and therefore, the case of the complainant could not be processed and filed. The complainant is not entitled to any refund as per clause 2(a), 7(a) and 8(a) of the said Contract. The complainant has failed to submit the required documents alongwith proof of funds amounting to Rs.20 lacs which the complainant was required to show for immigration to Denmark. As per clause 2(u) of the said contract, the complainant was required to make own arrangement for transfer of funds and investment in Denmark amounting to Rs.20 lacs as per the Green Card Scheme for Denmark. The complainant has failed to arrange for the requisite amount and as such, her case could not be processed and filed. A bare perusal of the terms and conditions of the agreement reveal that the complainant was required to show Rs.20 lacs (approximately) under this scheme. Even an e-mail dated 11.3.2014 copy of which is Ex.OP4 was also sent to the complainant asking for the requisite documents as well as proof of funds. At the time of filing of the assessment sheet also, copy of which accounts for Ex.OP5, a detailed note No.14 was also appended regarding proof of funds to be provided by the complainant. Thus, it is the complainant herself who has defaulted in submitting complete documents as well as proof of funds due to which her case could not be processed and filed.
8. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. She has not only misrepresented the facts in the complaint, but has also made false statement before this Forum. In para No.8 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that she is a student and not an earning hand, which fact is completely false as is evident from the assessment sheet, wherein the education qualification and nature of the employment of the complainant has been mentioned as teacher. In the said assessment sheet copy of which is for Ex.OP5, it is clearly mentioned that the education qualification of the complainant is MSc Maths from Guru Nanak Dev University. In respect to the nature of employment, it is clearly stated that the complainant had been doing the job as Teacher in the Spring Dales Senior School for the period 2000 to 2011 and thereafter from 2011 till date she is doing the job of Teacher in Government School. It is further mentioned that the complainant had taught middle classes for 11 years and she had been teaching in secondary classes for the last 2 years. Aforesaid facts falsify the case of the complainant that she is a student and was not an earning hand.
9. The Opposite Parties had duly been performing their part of the contract right from the time when the complainant entered into the agreement. The complainant was duly advised and guided about necessary documents and requirement (s) of funds for transfer, for preparing and filing the case and there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties at any point of time. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the total amount of Rs.67,415/- an amount of Rs.7415/- has been paid as service tax by the Opposite Parties which is totally non-refundable as the same has gone into government account as is clear from the receipts dated 23.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3. The complainant actually has paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- only to the Opposite Parties and she has failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/-. The complainant has also failed to show the amount of Rs.20 lacs in cash in her account which was the requirement for getting green card facility for Denmark. Fault, if any, lies with the complainant. The complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same deserves dismissal. Consequently, the instant complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 01.08.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
